1. Executive Summary

1.1 The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 requires Scottish
Ministers to prepare, consult on, and publish a Land Rights and
Responsibilities Statement (the “Statement”). The
Statement is a set of principles with an overarching vision
intended to guide the development of public policy on the nature
and character of land rights and responsibilities in Scotland.

1.2 Scottish Ministers published a written consultation on the
draft Statement on 16th December 2016 with views invited by 10th
March 2017. 62 responses were submitted, 37 from organisations and
25 from individuals. A summary of the views of respondents
follows.

Views on the Statement’s Policy Context

1.3 Most of those who provided a view considered that the
supportive information in the consultation document, which set out
the relationship between the Statement and other key policy areas,
captured the range of relevant policy areas. Some suggestions were
made for additional policy areas under the headings of: Human
Rights and International Standards; National Performance Framework;
Land Strategies; and Related National Policies.

1.4 Several respondents acknowledged the wide range of policy
areas which interact with land rights and responsibilities, and
identified the need for developing a strong and clear Statement to
draw these together.

Views on the Statement’s Human Rights Based
Approach

1.5 Most of the respondents who commented agreed with the
Scottish Government’s human rights based approach to the
Statement. This approach was viewed as reflecting current
perceptions and expectations of land as a resource to be used in
the public interest; it was seen as being consistent with various
Conventions and Covenants on human rights; and was perceived to be
a way of safeguarding owners’ enjoyment of their property,
whilst making clear that public interest can, in some instances,
justify interference with private interests.

1.6 A common view was that the Statement should mention the
human rights based approach explicitly. Another recurring view was
that the responsibilities which accompany human rights should be
made clear.

1.7 Some respondents perceived the Statement to lack clarity on
how existing human rights based legislation would support the
implementation of the Statement’s vision and principles in
practice.

Views on the Statement’s Vision

1.8 Most respondents who provided a view agreed with the
Statement’s vision, although individual respondents were
generally more supportive than organisations, almost half of whom
disagreed with it.

1.9 The vision was perceived to be supportive of a collaborative
approach; it was seen as introducing the concept that with land
ownership comes responsibility to others; and it was viewed as
encompassing both economic and social objectives.

1.10 Some respondents commented that the vision should make
mention of environmental sustainability; others considered that
responsibilities were not emphasised sufficiently.

Views on the Statement’s Principles

1.11 All of the six principles received support from most of the
respondents who provided a view. Some considered Principle 4 to be
the most important in terms of demanding high standards and its
focus on stewardship.

Principle 1

1.12 Principle 1 was welcomed as encompassing the key elements
of a land rights and responsibilities framework, with specific
aspects singled out for particular support: mention of a duty to
future generations; promotion of environmental sustainability; and
reference to a fairer society.

1.13 A few respondents suggested that the Principle’s
heading should include reference to fulfilling, or progressive
realisation of, human rights.

1.14 A recurring view was that the Principle heading and the
listed policies need to be more explicitly connected to show how
the policies reflect, and align with, the Principle.

1.15 Those opposing the Principle considered that there is
reluctance within it to acknowledge that there is a public right to
private ownership and enjoyment of land and buildings; and that the
term “fairer society” required clarification.

Principle 2

1.16 National Non-Governmental Organisations (National
NGOs) were
particularly supportive of Principle 2 in terms of its focus on
broadening the pattern of land ownership, the inclusion of
“tenure”, and the mention of the role of charitable
bodies in managing Scotland’s natural and built heritage.

1.17 A recurring view amongst those opposing the Principle was
that diversity of ownership does not link directly with diversity
of land use or management. Some respondents considered the
Principle to be overly ideological and detracting attention from
what they identified as the key issue of stewardship of land, how
it is used rather than how it is owned.

Principle 3

1.18 Respondents from a range of sectors supported Principle 3,
with some highlighting existing evidence of positive benefits
arising from broadening the opportunities for communities to own
buildings and land.

1.19 Some respondents suggested that in view of the potential
benefits to communities of leasing buildings and land, reference to
leasing should be included in the Principle’s title. Another
suggestion was to refer to “having access to” in
addition to owning or leasing, and that the opportunities for
owning, leasing and having access to buildings and land should be
communicated to local communities so that they are aware of these
possibilities.

1.20 An emerging theme was that support should be in place to
enable communities lacking in capacity and skills to realise
Principle 3.

1.21 A common view in opposition to Principle 3 was that it is
already covered by the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act
2015.

Principle 4

1.22 Some respondents welcomed this Principle as addressing what
they saw as the fundamental feature of land ownership, namely,
stewardship.

1.23 Others supported the emphasis on responsibilities within
the Principle and considered that it reached beyond owners, to land
managers and users too.

1.24 It was suggested that the Principle could be strengthened
by re-wording some phrases to make them more meaningful and
providing examples as illustration.

Principle 5

1.25 Several respondents, across a range of sectors, identified
the key advantages of Principle 5 to be increased transparency and
accountability. Other important benefits were perceived to be
improved communication between stakeholders, and better
co-ordination of activities and collaborative ventures.

1.26 A few respondents requested that loopholes, which enabled
data to be hidden or obscured, should be identified and addressed
in order to support Principle 5.

1.27 A key concern was that landowners may find the provision of
information to be costly and onerous.

Principle 6

1.28 There was strong support for Principle 6 which was welcomed
as an approach to better and more transparent decision-making; and
supporting a shift in focus towards the public interest and the
common good.

1.29 Some respondents considered that “community”
should encompass communities of interest in addition to communities
of place.

1.30 A common concern was that wider community engagement should
not result in delaying and increasing the complexity of
decision-making. Another concern was that the community should be
fairly represented, and not simply by those whose voices are
loudest.

1.31 Some respondents held the view that community engagement
should not be a blanket requirement in every decision on land, but
should be instigated only in certain circumstances, such as a
material change to land use.

Further comments

1.32 The Statement was generally welcomed as comprising a
promising start towards changing culture and furthering the land
reform agenda. Some National
NGOs,
however, considered that it was not sufficiently compelling and
could go further to set a realisable vision and encourage a change
in thinking.

1.33 Repeated calls were made for greater detail on how
landowners, users and managers should be engaged to support the
desired outcomes. Some respondents questioned whether the
Statement’s non-legal basis would undermine it.

1.34 Several respondents emphasised that a well-planned
implementation of the Statement will be crucial in ensuring its
effectiveness. A recurring view was for the Statement to be
underpinned by a robust monitoring and evaluation framework.

Impact assessment

1.35 Most of those who provided a view envisaged potentially
positive impacts as a result of the proposals in the consultation.
The most commonly mentioned positive impacts were: reduction in
inequality; better use of land; and community empowerment.

1.36 Some costs were associated with the proposals, such as
increased funding requests to asset transfer funding schemes, and
the costs of community engagement processes, but overall these were
viewed as likely to reap benefits over the longer-term.

1.37 Most of those providing a view identified potentially
positive impacts on the environment as a result of the proposals.
In particular, decision-making on land in the public interest was
perceived as likely to produce positive environmental impacts.